I've rarely been letting other sites access my Facebook data ... because I don't really trust them (they sell my data to companies who then use it to trick me with phhotos of my friends). When given the choice it seems easiest and safest (least revealing) to use my twitter login.
Is it just me or did anyone else have a lot of trouble reading that press release excerpt because of all the exclamation points. I know that the trademark name "Yahoo!" includes the bang but I found it really annoying.
And then this deal with Yahoo! Facebook Connect is a simple way to use Facebook ID and connect to other non-Facebook websites, and then if you want, send those interactions back to your Facebook page. For instance, if you logged into GigaOM and left a comment using Facebook Connect, you can tell your friends that you did so.
While a single point to get identity/authentication from is nice, and Facebook is poised to pull it off (despite that I'd personally prefer something more open, portable and federated) more so that previous big contenders in this area (MS Passport comes to mind), I think the jury is still out on if this -- tell your friends you did something, like posted a comment -- is a valid use case, no matter how many people keep bringing that up as one of the possible future powers of Facebook.
While my Facebook network is relatively small and is composed mainly of people I've met in real life and have a relationship with that is not solely on-line, the actual interaction I get on Facebook for my "internet actions" (all imported via Facebook/Friendfeed integration), and the interaction I see other people get on Facebook for things they've posted (mostly directly posted, since few people use Friendfeed and the Friendfeed Facebook app), is extremely minimal. Admittedly, this could be because my network is, in general, boring. I think there are two core reasons the interaction is minimal.
First, the majority of anyone's network is not going to actually cares that someone made a comment on GigaOM. If they did, they'd be on GigaOM, not on Facebook. And if they're on/frequent GigaOM because they are interested in the content there, there's no reason to do their GigaOM-centric interaction anywhere else.
Secondly, Facebook being a proxy for reporting on all internet (or real-life) activity adds a layer of indirection but doesn't add significant value. There's no incentive to move a conversation that already exists on GigaOM to a Facebook comment thread. I've been disappointed that a lot of Facebook interaction (for what I've observed) has been of the "me too" variety. The ability to click through and view the original source of the content is too easy: the Internet itself is already federated (AOL and Compuserve tried that with their own walled gardens).
So Facebook can be a clearing house for activity, but I think it'll end up being a jumping off point, which in itself has significant value from the standpoint of aggregation (this is the main use of Friendfeed, in fact). But there a lot of other players in the aggregated content market that focus more on the user generating the content than on the consumers (tumblr, posterous), which are even easer to access than Facebook, since you don't need an account on a single site to consume them and the entire content is available on the original site. This very comment will get truncated once imported to Facebook (through backtype and Friendfeed).
